The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    As I said in my last thread I am Starting a jazz collection and a classical collection. We all know vinyl sounds better but I have read people claiming that when matched with a quality player cassettes sound better than CDs and MP3s. I think this is true for CDs vs MP3s and records vs everything but is this true for cassettes vs CDs and MP3s? I haven't listened to a cassette since the 90s if this is true it seems like it would be cool hunting down old cassettes as a collector.

    What at is your opinion?

    thanks!

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    Thirty to forty years ago when I was in grad school and did recording to supplement the income, I made a lot of cassettes. It was the convenience and moderate cost that were the attractions, similar to mp3s today. But it was a real struggle to get anything approaching true high fidelity on the cassettes. It could be done but was fairly rare. Chrome dioxide tape and Dolby C were helpful, but not used in "consumer-level" cassettes. The only reason to actually collect old cassettes would be for the actual music, and possibly historical interest.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Cassettes were never great. MP3 or better yet WAV files are only as good as the setting you use ripping them. If you use higher setting you get better sound, but the file sizes start growing like crazy. IMO vinyl today is an audiophile thing and so unless going high-end from the vinyl to speakers not worth it, again IMO.

    I prefer WAV files, but MP3 are supported more by the common audio devices. So MP3's at higher 192 or 256 work for me. There are some at 320 now too, but that is more of an special case.

    I'm on a budget these days both $$$ and apartment size, so if I can find a used or inexpensive CD I buy it otherwise I go for higher bit rate MP3 or WAV if ripping myself.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Vinyl or CDs would be my first choice.

    MP3s are for lazy people who have never heard high-quality music playback and, in my opinion, are a complete waste of time unless your hearing is shot or it's a very historical recording that isn't available in ANY other format.

    Ditto, cassettes.

    Editorial addendum:
    docbop posted while I was framing my reply. I would never accuse him of being lazy or having poor hearing. He does bring a reasonable argument to the table for using MP3s as a means of saving space when dwelling in cramped quarters. My personal preference for digital storage files is WAV, CDA or FLAC.
    Last edited by monk; 09-16-2014 at 01:51 PM.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Cds only capture snapshots of the audio being recorded even though the snapshots are faster than our ears perception it's still different. Vinyl and tape are analog with a continuous signal. Tapes are better to me than cd's for this reason. I used to have a few hundred tapes. MP3 is convenient.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bobsguitars09
    Cds only capture snapshots of the audio being recorded even though the snapshots are faster than our ears perception it's still different. Vinyl and tape are analog with a continuous signal. Tapes are better to me than cd's for this reason. I used to have a few hundred tapes. MP3 is convenient.
    So you only listen to music recorded prior to 1980. Early digital recording started in the 70's but '79 was first all digital album. And been a landslide since from recorders to computers to plugings, virtual instruments. The good ones are kicking up the sampling rate during recording. So pretty hard to avoid digital these days. Then the whole recording process has its limits the typically response you see for equipment is 20-20K, the sounds we hear in the real world go much higher and lower, as humans we don't hear them, but they do affect was we do hear cleaning up and altering the sound around us, audio gear doesn't pick that up or reproduce it. The weak link in audio has been and still is the speakers so unless using great speakers you not hearing all the difference.

    Then cassette tape over CD you are kidding. Besides all the hiss and tape stretch cassette is prone to the audio width was so narrow and that limited the sound. Cassette tape is four tracks on what 1/8" wide tape. Two tracks for side A and two track for side B that isn't much. In a studio masters are typically done on what's in my day was call half-track machine. That is 1/4" tape and only two tracks one direction so each track is the width of an entire cassette tape. Track width has a lot to do with audio quality in getting a good audio.

    Since talking tape that is when I first got into audio. Tape has its issue with pin holes from engineers recording bass to hot, the magnetic medium flaking, tape stretch from various issues, various qualities of tape, and different brands of tape having different audio qualities. Then tape storage issues and track transfer if wound too tight, tape sticking it not rewound occasionally to get air in. Tape becoming brittle and the media losing it strength like magnets lose strength. Then the studio tape recorder the bias would drift first job you get in a studio is setting up sesssion and part of that was re-setting ther bias on the tape deck. On long session you could hear sound get weak and have to take a break and re-bias the decks.

    All I'm getting at is there is a lot more to all this than analog good, digital bad. Also I see people so concerned with high end recording and sampling rates but what are they listening on? After all my years in doing audio I'd say only 2% of the people who talk all this audio stuff actually have the ears to hear it. Won't even get into the natural rate hearing start to diminishes starting in your late 30's early 40's.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    I read somewhere that digital audio can cause grave health issues.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    I heard somewhere that reading can cause grave health issues.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Cassettes were OK to have music in a car (especially when I couldn't afford a "silent" car)
    Now I find MP3 OK for music in my car. Convenient (hundred of hours of music in my pocket) and fine enough for the ambient noise in the car.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by docbop
    So you only listen to music recorded prior to 1980. Early digital recording started in the 70's but '79 was first all digital album. And been a landslide since from recorders to computers to plugings, virtual instruments. The good ones are kicking up the sampling rate during recording. So pretty hard to avoid digital these days. Then the whole recording process has its limits the typically response you see for equipment is 20-20K, the sounds we hear in the real world go much higher and lower, as humans we don't hear them, but they do affect was we do hear cleaning up and altering the sound around us, audio gear doesn't pick that up or reproduce it. The weak link in audio has been and still is the speakers so unless using great speakers you not hearing all the difference.

    Then cassette tape over CD you are kidding. Besides all the hiss and tape stretch cassette is prone to the audio width was so narrow and that limited the sound. Cassette tape is four tracks on what 1/8" wide tape. Two tracks for side A and two track for side B that isn't much. In a studio masters are typically done on what's in my day was call half-track machine. That is 1/4" tape and only two tracks one direction so each track is the width of an entire cassette tape. Track width has a lot to do with audio quality in getting a good audio.

    Since talking tape that is when I first got into audio. Tape has its issue with pin holes from engineers recording bass to hot, the magnetic medium flaking, tape stretch from various issues, various qualities of tape, and different brands of tape having different audio qualities. Then tape storage issues and track transfer if wound too tight, tape sticking it not rewound occasionally to get air in. Tape becoming brittle and the media losing it strength like magnets lose strength. Then the studio tape recorder the bias would drift first job you get in a studio is setting up sesssion and part of that was re-setting ther bias on the tape deck. On long session you could hear sound get weak and have to take a break and re-bias the decks.

    All I'm getting at is there is a lot more to all this than analog good, digital bad. Also I see people so concerned with high end recording and sampling rates but what are they listening on? After all my years in doing audio I'd say only 2% of the people who talk all this audio stuff actually have the ears to hear it. Won't even get into the natural rate hearing start to diminishes starting in your late 30's early 40's.
    thank you for the detailed response btw Docbop

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Cassettes were great in the 70s and early 80s. As a kid we made mixes, dubbed our friends' albums, and played them to death. But they suck and I have no remorse over their obsolescence.

    CDs are great sounding but sometimes too expensive, and the printing is too small for my aging eyes.

    Vinyl is great sounding but a pain to store and they are more prone to physical failure.

    MP3/AAC can sound "reasonably great" and are to me a valid compromise if it means I can store tens of thousands of songs on my computer, shuffle them, stream them wirelessly throughout my house, create endlessly variable playlists with trivial ease, etc.

    The key here is that with CDs, you rip them and also get MP3/AAC. So it's a no brainer to me. Base your collection on CDs, and rip them for the convenience of a computer-based library. Buy vinyl copies of certain albums you love and see if they sound "better" and are worth the extra maintenance.
    Last edited by rpguitar; 09-18-2014 at 01:35 PM.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpguitar
    Cassettes were great in the 70s and early 80s. As a kid we made mixes, dubbed our friends' albums, and played them to death. But they suck and I have no remorse over their obsolescence.

    CDs are great sounding but sometimes too expensive, and the printing is too small for my aging eyes.

    Vinyl is great sounding but a pain to store and they are more prone to physical failure.

    MP3/AAC can sound "reasonably great" and are to me a valid compromise if it means I can store tens of thousands of songs on my computer, shuffle them, stream them wirelessly throughout my house, create endlessly variable playlists with trivial ease, etc.

    The key here is that with CDs, you rip them and also get MP3/AAC. So it's a no brainer to me. Base your collection on CDs, and rip them for the convenience of a computer-based library. Buy vinyl copies of certain albums you love and see if they sound "better" and are worth the extra maintenance.
    Thanks however do you ripped CDs sound as good as jus playing the cd itself

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Conman
    Thanks however do you ripped CDs sound as good as jus playing the cd itself
    When you rip a CD, you can choose in your rip settings menu what quality you copy at. If you don't compress it, your copy will be exactly the same quality as the original.

    Regarding your original question though, personally I'll leave aside the digital vs. analogue debate, although there are many valid points discussed above.

    I would suggest from a purely practical standpoint that you focus on CDs. Although their days are numbered, they're going to be around for a while yet, and being digital, they'll be compatible with what comes along in the foreseeable future. A huge amount of classic Jazz CD's can be picked up really cheaply now. During the 90's and 00's there was more classic Jazz available as re-issues than there had been at any point in the 40 years prior to that. It's safe to say that pretty much any Jazz you're looking for will be most readily available on CD.

    Secondly, if you're really bitten with the collecting bug, and you have the time,space and money! I'd maybe then consider the vinyl/turntable option. You may find some things on vinyl that you simply can't obtain on any other format, or you may want to start a "connoisseur collection" of your favourite artist(s) or albums.

    It's great to hear that Jazz is turning your ear, and if you're learning to play it on an instrument, so much the better. I'd say it's very important, indeed, essential to check out its' history and development. The work of the masters is all out there to discover. I would just try not to get too distracted by HiFi magazines, Guitar magazines, gear, etc.

    Hope you enjoy the journey !
    All the best,
    Puby.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    CD and MP3 more convenient?? No way...

    CD vs Cassette vs MP3-93fdf2b9d7eb23e018a31b645f2c63b7-jpg

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Me & my teacher used to hang out in cafes listening to jazz on cassette tape, on one of those portable handheld players with a built in speaker (early 90's - pre-mp3, ipod, smartphone etc.). On a rig like that, it distorts, the pitch wavers and you get loss of fidelity. But it had a vibe and I have associations with certain albums with that sound. For me, jazz from the 50's or earlier sounds good on a lo-fi rig - it can add something that a pristine recording can't. Sounds fatter.

    I did a demo a few years ago on a tascam cassette 4-track with nice mics - again, lots of wow and flutter, hiss etc. But it had a certain spirit as compared to my current digital rig. Different strokes.

    I love lo-fi homemade jazz recordings like this (portable reel to reel tape), probably for the same reason that certain guitarists play through vintage sounding valve amps that ever so slightly break up:


  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 3625
    Me & my teacher used to hang out in cafes listening to jazz on cassette tape, on one of those portable handheld players with a built in speaker (early 90's - pre-mp3, ipod, smartphone etc.). On a rig like that, it distorts, the pitch wavers and you get loss of fidelity. But it had a vibe and I have associations with certain albums with that sound. For me, jazz from the 50's or earlier sounds good on a lo-fi rig - it can add something that a pristine recording can't. Sounds fatter.

    I did a demo a few years ago on a tascam cassette 4-track with nice mics - again, lots of wow and flutter, hiss etc. But it had a certain spirit as compared to my current digital rig. Different strokes.

    I love lo-fi homemade jazz recordings like this (portable reel to reel tape), probably for the same reason that certain guitarists play through vintage sounding valve amps that ever so slightly break up:


    Some excellent points. I've spun a lot of classic beat up dollar store copies on an old console hi fi and there's nothing like it.
    It places you in the moment. And I have many recordings done on the mighty Tascam 244...has a sound all it's own...and a good one.
    Thanks for bringing back the memories.

    I have my entire library on a Mac all at 192 kbps
    Sound fine when you're just casually listening.
    If you want the audiophile experience you need the equipment to do it.
    Damn good turntable, very nice cartridge and a system to back it up.

    Thank you to docbop also for his vinyl insights....I thoroughly enjoyed it and never knew about the 24 hour rule.
    CD's I find nothing wrong with. Given the previous pressing practices I welcomed it. It's basically a transferred copy of the master which is more than you would have gotten from the grotesquely overrun plates and substandard vinyl you would've got back in the 70's.



    Quote Originally Posted by teok
    CD and MP3 more convenient?? No way...

    CD vs Cassette vs MP3-93fdf2b9d7eb23e018a31b645f2c63b7-jpg
    Watch those potholes!!

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    +1 on the lo-fi element adding vibe. Same with the inevitable noise from 78's even when remastered. Some of those filtered (Cedar ?) noiseless remasters sound pretty gutless sometimes.

    Just another point, for all the CD vs Vinyl debate, I'd be the first to agree that above a certain price/spec point vinyl beats CD hands down, but on the affordable low end equipment that a lot of us used back in the day, a cheap CD far outperforms a cheap turntable. I remember as a teenager, trying to transcribe off vinyl and there was a lot of detail there that you just could not hear, especially in the lower end of the frequency spectrum.

    A couple of other random thoughts. Some CD masters from original acetates can still offer incredible sound quality. The recent Sony Charlie Christian "Genius of the Electric Guitar" box set is a real eye opener in terms of what carefully selected masters and expert transferring can offer. If you haven't heard it, it is quite simply the finest audio quality Charlie Christian out there. Incredible for late 30's, early 40's recordings.

    Amazon.com: The Genius Of The Electric Guitar: Music

    1 more thought, it's surprising that nobody has offered a definitive audiophile release of Charlie Parker's recordings yet.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pubylakeg
    When you rip a CD, you can choose in your rip settings menu what quality you copy at. If you don't compress it, your copy will be exactly the same quality as the original.

    Regarding your original question though, personally I'll leave aside the digital vs. analogue debate, although there are many valid points discussed above.

    I would suggest from a purely practical standpoint that you focus on CDs. Although their days are numbered, they're going to be around for a while yet, and being digital, they'll be compatible with what comes along in the foreseeable future. A huge amount of classic Jazz CD's can be picked up really cheaply now. During the 90's and 00's there was more classic Jazz available as re-issues than there had been at any point in the 40 years prior to that. It's safe to say that pretty much any Jazz you're looking for will be most readily available on CD.

    Secondly, if you're really bitten with the collecting bug, and you have the time,space and money! I'd maybe then consider the vinyl/turntable option. You may find some things on vinyl that you simply can't obtain on any other format, or you may want to start a "connoisseur collection" of your favourite artist(s) or albums.

    It's great to hear that Jazz is turning your ear, and if you're learning to play it on an instrument, so much the better. I'd say it's very important, indeed, essential to check out its' history and development. The work of the masters is all out there to discover. I would just try not to get too distracted by HiFi magazines, Guitar magazines, gear, etc.

    Hope you enjoy the journey !
    All the best,
    Puby.
    Yeah I play jazz guitar bass and learning jazz piano